It was honestly incredibly stupid of the American founders to assume making these guys practically untouchable would make them above corruption rather than the perfect targets for it. Childishly naive.
I disagree.
The way they looked at it: If judges were elected or could otherwise be replaced or removed easily, their decisions would much more likely be based not on a correct interpretation of the law, but what would keep the lobbyist money flowing in, what they think would get them re-elected, or they would simply parrot the rulings of whoever could have them removed from the bench. Having them be lifetime appointments (in theory) would remove all of that, and they still gave Congress a way to remove a corrupt judge anyway if one of them did get out of line.
They expected (perhaps naively) that corruption would be rare and would never engulf more than one branch of government. They never expected a situation where two branches of government became equally corrupt at the same time. That’s where the real problem lies; the fail-safe that they put into place in case of corruption became corrupt itself.
Had our government worked the way the founding fathers intended, Clarence Thomas would have been heaved off the bench at warp speed by Congress about four seconds after his first bribery scandal broke. The problem isn’t the system. The system that the founding fathers gave us in the late 1700s was fine. The problem is that there’s no way they could have possibly foreseen the levels of corruption that exist 250 years later.
250 years from now, there are going to be a ton of policies we’re coming up with today that are going to seem just as stupid and naive.
